Expanding human freedoms for economic development

Expanding human freedoms for economic development

The following are reflections on Amartya Kumar Sen's
views on development as a process of enhancing human freedoms of
various kinds, based on his latest book Development as Freedom.
Prof. Sen, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge University,
United Kingdom, was the first Asian recipient of the Nobel prize
in economics, being honored in 1998. This is the first of two
articles.

JAKARTA (JP): In his latest book, Prof. Amartya Kumar Sen has
presented and analyzed in a persuasive and rigorous way his
concept of development as a process of expanding the real
freedoms that people can enjoy.

In this approach the expansion of freedom is seen both as the
primary end and the principal means of development. The intrinsic
importance of human freedom as the preeminent objective of
development is strongly supplemented by the instrumental
effectiveness of freedoms of particular kinds to promote freedoms
of other kinds.

The linkages between different types of freedoms are empirical
and causal, rather than constitutive and compositional. For
instance, empirical evidence has indicated that economic and
political freedom help to reinforce one another.

Similarly, the social opportunities of education and health
care (which may require public action) complement individual
opportunities of economic and political participation, and also
help to foster a person's own initiative in overcoming his or her
deprivations.

Obviously, Sen's broad view of development contrasts with the
more conventional and narrower views on development as the growth
of gross domestic product (GDP), rise in personal incomes, rapid
industrialization and technological progress or social
modernization.

Sen's view on development as a process of expanding
substantive freedoms involves the removal of the major sources of
unfreedom, namely poverty and tyranny, poor economic
opportunities and systematic social deprivation, neglect of
public utilities and the intolerance or overactivity of
repressive regimes.

Despite the unprecedented increase in material welfare,
including in many developing countries, a large part of mankind,
perhaps even the majority, is denied elementary freedoms.

Often the lack of substantive freedoms is directly related to
absolute poverty, which in some countries in sub-Saharan Africa
and in North Korea has manifested itself in famines, which have
denied millions of people, often children, the basic freedom to
survive.

Even in countries which have never experienced famine,
absolute poverty has deprived vulnerable people of the freedom to
satisfy their hunger or to have sufficient nutrition, to obtain
medication for treatable illnesses, to have the opportunity to be
adequately clothed or sheltered, or to have access to clean water
and sanitary facilities.

In other cases, unfreedom (the lack of freedom) is directly
related to a lack of public facilities and social care, such as
the absence of epidemiological programs, of organized
arrangements for adequate health care or educational facilities,
or of effective institutions for the maintenance of security, law
and order.

The antifemale bias in some, often poor or traditional
societies also severely restricts the substantive freedoms that
women are entitled to enjoy. However, the freedom to seek and
hold jobs outside the home can contribute to the reduction of
women's relative and absolute deprivation.

By holding a job outside the home and thereby contributing to
the family's welfare, a woman can have a greater voice in her
family's affairs because of her greater economic independence.

In still other cases the lack of freedom is the direct result
of the denial of political and civil rights by authoritarian
governments and by imposed restrictions on the freedom to
participate actively in the social, political and economic life
of the community.

In several developing countries the opposition to democracy
and basic political and civil freedoms is often based on the
following arguments:

First, there is the claim that these political freedoms and
rights hamper economic growth and development. This view,
sometimes referred to as the "Lee Thesis" (after Lee Kuan Yew,
former prime minister and current senior minister of Singapore),
is actually only backed by fairly rudimentary empirical evidence.

More comprehensive intercountry comparisons have not provided
confirmation of the Lee Thesis, and there is little evidence that
an authoritarian regime actually helps economic growth. In fact,
the empirical evidence collected by Sen very strongly suggests
that rapid economic growth in several developing countries was
primarily caused by a favorable economic climate rather than a
harsh political system.

Second, some advocates of authoritarian policies have claimed
that if poor people are given the choice between having political
freedoms and fulfilling economic needs, they will invariably
choose the latter. This patronizing claim is, like the Lee
Thesis, based on little empirical evidence. The only way of
verifying this claim would be to put the matter to democratic
testing in free elections with freedom of opposition and
expression which, however, are precisely the things that the
supporters of authoritarianism, notably the government leaders in
many developing countries, will not allow to happen.

A third argument in favor of authoritarian policies is based
on the claim that political freedoms, liberties and democracy are
"Western concepts" that are alien and not in accordance with
"Asian values" which, again according to Lee Kuan Yew, emphasize
order and personal and social discipline, rather than political
liberty and freedom.

However, the problem with the concept of Asian values is that
generalizations about Asia are not easy, given the vast size of
the continent, where about 60 percent of the world's population
live. What represents the values of such a vast region, with such
immense cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity?

The advocates of Asian values have often tended to look
primarily at Northeast Asia as the region of particular
applicability, including China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam, as
distinct from Southeast Asia (except Singapore) and South Asia.
However, even Northeast Asia is culturally, ethnically and
linguistically quite diverse. Hence, attempts at generalizations
about Asian values often tend to be quite crude or just plain
wrong.

The important role of democracy is particularly evident in
preventing famines from happening. In looking at the factors that
could prevent famines from occurring, Sen emphasizes the
important role of democracy.

In fact, the causal connection between democracy and the
nonoccurrence of famines is not hard to find. While famines have
killed millions of people in various countries under
authoritarian rule, they never kill the rulers of these
countries.

The presidents, kings, bureaucrats, military leaders and their
families in nondemocratic countries hit by a famine never are
famine victims. The simple reason is that in these countries
those in power do not have to suffer the political consequences
of their failure to prevent famine, as in these countries there
are no free elections, no credible opposition parties and no free
press able to publish facts embarrassing to the government (but
which an authoritarian government could censor out).

In democracies, on the other hand, famines could also affect
the ruling groups and political leaders. This threat would give
them the political incentive to prevent a famine from occurring.
Aside from this, information also plays an important role in
democracies.

A press free to conduct investigative reporting could
contribute greatly to bringing out valuable information that
could influence policies to prevent famines. The importance of
democratic freedoms is evident in comparisons between China and
India in preventing famine.

While during the past half century China has made more rapid
progress than India in social development, specifically in
providing basic education and primary health care on a mass
scale, it nevertheless experienced a disastrous famine, as a
result of which an estimated 30 million people died, following
the failure of the Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1961.

India, on the other hand, experienced famines right up to the
time of independence in 1947. However, since independence and the
establishment of a multiparty democratic system (a system India
has been able to maintain up until the present), India has not
had a famine, even though at certain times it experienced severe
crop failures.

Sen's analysis of development treats the freedoms of
individuals as the basic building blocks. Hence, development
should be seen as a process of expanding the substantive
freedoms, or "human capabilities" (as an expression of the
freedoms), that people have.

This perspective of human capability is to some extent related
to the perspective of "human capital", since both perspectives
are concerned with the role of human beings, and in particular
with the abilities that they try to achieve.

The human capital perspective, however, is narrower in scope
as it focuses on the agency of human beings in augmenting
production possibilities, that is how they can become more
productive over time and thus give a greater contribution to the
process of economic growth.

Sen's perspective of human capability, on the other hand, is
broader than the human capital perspective, as it focuses on the
ability or the substantive freedom of people to lead the lives
they have reason to value and to enhance the real choices they
have.

Sen's capability perspective involves, to some extent, a
return to an integrated approach to economic and social
development as expounded by Adam Smith in his books The Wealth of
Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

In analyzing the determination of production possibilities,
Smith emphasized the role of education as well as division of
labor, learning by doing and skill formation. But the development
of human capability in leading a worthwhile life (as well as in
being more productive) is quite central to Smith's analysis of
"the wealth of nations".

The writer is an economics historian with the Center for
Economic and Development Studies, Indonesian Institute of
Sciences (PEP-LIPI), Jakarta.